I would argue that most (if not all other) internal threats to a democracy are a subset of the vigilance and apathy problem. If the surveillance state existed

I would argue that most (if not all other) internal threats to a democracy are a subset of the vigilance and apathy problem. If the surveillance state existed before the democracy and continued on without the consent of the governed, then it wasn't a democracy to begin with. If the citizens allowed a surveillance state to take root or their vigilance slipped, then continued vigilance would keep the surveillance state in check. However, I'm making the assumption here that for the surveillance state to take enough power to make it unstoppable (without violent revolution), it would have to grow to the point where its secrecy is no longer maintainable, and the aforementioned vigilance would take over and bring in the rains. Now that I've written that, it all seems like semantics...